Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

My further comment to Jason:http://answersforhope.com/why-i-stop-at ... omment-461"'Why I stop atheists from posting here'.You stop ME from posting here because I tell the truth and you don't.As I have shown you. And because I do this, I get censored, banned and called names by you Jason."

http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?s ... 7733226239I can't help noticing how Petersen stereo-types people who disagree with him: "atheists" ... who "try to be rude and cause trouble so they get banned so they can play the victim".He missed out the bit about how he censors people in order to give a false impression of them to his followers and also (in my case at least) in order to avoid having to refute their arguments. And then when those people complain he accuses them of being 'hateful' or telling 'lies' (whilst censoring them again, so that his other readers only hear HIS - dishonest - version of events).

I was only rude to him AFTER he treated me like dirt as just described.

The FULL chronological sequence of events can be read at the separate 'Sorensen' thread.

Petersen has never allowed my comment where I wrote:"http://answersforhope.com/my-contributi ... -creation/"Creation science is scientific because it studies the natural world using the scientific method." NO. It 'studies' the natural world using the Bible as an 'infallible' and non-negotiable starting point. Who does Petersen think he is fooling? Himself? Young Earth Creationism is an anti-scientific, religious, worldview."This is a straw man. I can’t think of one major Creationist resource that says that we are against science." That is because young Earth creationists are never objective and frequently dishonest and evasive. They also quietly 'redefine' science to mean - in a woolly sort of way - 'knowledge'. By which they mean biblical 'revelation about the natural world', supported by any direct observations that seem to confirm scripture (ie there's a fossil record so Noah's Flood is 'real, recent, worldwide, history')."If we hated science, we wouldn’t be using science to show that our observations of the natural world are consistent with what The Bible says now would we?" You are NOT using science (see my example just now). You are using FAITH. You reject ALL explanations of evidence, and there are MANY, that do not confirm scripture! You pre-select the conclusion required and if necessary twist or ignore evidence. Such behaviour by mainstream scientists would not (normally) get past peer review. YECs shun peer review (other than by fellow YECs of course).Your implied claim that the likes of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Lord Kelvin would have been young Earth creationist fundamentalists if they were around today is sheer FANTASY.There ARE Christian scientists. They are at places like the Biologos forum, or working professionally in real, mainstream, science. Your friend Cowboy Bob LIES about science. In recent days he has claimed there is 'no' evidence for birds evolving from dinosaurs, and that evolution is 'pseudo-science'".

If he didn't like the comment about Sorensen, why did he not just censor that bit - and address the rest of my comment?

Clearly he does not wish to let the matter rest. All along he and Sorensen have NEVER ever discussed with me or their readers my detailed and specific criticisms of their science claims - but have sought instead to portray me as 'creepy'/'obsessed'/'trolling' etc. And they have also quoted me selectively without providing a link to this website so people can see the full context or else they selectively censored me. (My email provided Petersen with some publicity but I have no regret about sending it.)

My attempted response to Mr Petersen's new blog all about me, as above (since late Saturday night I have not been seeking further attention from him but I am receiving it):

"More lies from you, Jason."Erecting straw men in forums and manipulating semantics in order to attempt to show that I am a liar doesn’t quite cut it." If I was doing THAT, you would doubtless refute me instead of censoring me. "It is becoming evident that hateful speech from unbelievers is just a part of the trade of being an apologist." No, in my case at least there is NO reason for that to be so. However, you have censored my posts so as to avoid dealing with my arguments (eg my detailed post regarding your 12 Feb blog) - and then lied, repeatedly, about your reasons for doing so (and usually called me 'creepy' or 'obsessed' too, which is a diversionary tactic from the real issues since you invite people to 'Speak Your Mind' under your blogs and I DID so and initially without resorting to any personal abuse). "I also won’t apologize for telling the truth, and I won’t apologize for lies that I have not told." I have never asked an apology. However, I HAVE recently stated at the BCSE Community Forum: "Should Mr Petersen acknowledge on his 'Answers for Hope' blog that he has lied about me and my attempted postings, I will of course accept that admission and climbdown here on this community forum".I have found that many presuppositional apologist young Earth creationists are similarly dishonest about science and about their critics. THAT behaviour against myself and others I what I have sought to expose - I am not anti-Christian or anti-religion. "Just remember, if you continue to hate so strongly, that hate will be your downfall." If hate is a sin so is lying.Please give me and your readers chapter and verses on when and how I have employed "straw men and manipulating of semantics". 'Put Up or Shut Up'. As far as I recall ALL I did was quote back to you YOUR words."... the same sort of policy towards trolls". I am not a troll. But you have censored/part censored all my attempted posts showing that I had a serious argument to present about some of your claims and was not merely 'trolling'.Perhaps you are hoping that nobody will read those links I provided in my email? Well, I would strongly encourage all those who have the time to DO so. I have nothing to hide.And perhaps you might wish to tell me publicly HOW the posts here DON'T show that you have been dishonest? viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3153&p=44858&hilit=climbdown#p44858Then again - perhaps you might prefer to censor this post instead (it's on the BCSE Community Forum already at this new thread)?: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3220Your decision to reproduce my email but censor the link to the BCSE Community Forum (so your readers who did not get my emails cannot easily check the facts for themselves) suggests that you have something to hide. You would prefer people to see half the picture, whereas I would prefer them to see the whole picture.However, at least you are saying that if somebody emails you you WILL provide the link. I trust that your readers will do this. "Wow, just wow! If I have gotten the attention of the people who hang out with the BCSE that means I must be doing something right!" In my case, YOU wrote a blog post on 30 Jan which referred in part to ME by name, and Cowboy Bob flagged it. THAT is how you got my attention. And false statements about how young Earth creationists approach science which you made in your blog post on 12 Feb - followed by your subsequent censorship, failure to deal with my criticisms, and further name-calling - have kept my attention. (You also censored me telling somebody else he was wrong about 'Lucy'.)

Finally, a brief comment on your two emails to me (only). They contain little of substance and do not address anything that is shown at the BCSE community forum thread about my dealings with you. I also note that you appear to not have had the confidence to copy in all the people who I copied in. Without reproducing your messages (you may wish to do so) I am now sending them a further quick message - flagging your new blog post and this, my attempted response to it. You will, of course, be copied in.I suggest that if I had something to hide I would not do this. That is, I have no need to bluff.AshleyPS In response to Cowboy Bob's comment: I continue to stand by the words 'liar', 'hypocrite' and 'coward' that appear within the links in my email (I have also called Bob a liar and a coward and 'venomous' and stand by that too)."

Sorry to bother you again, but you may wish to be aware that Jason has written another blog post all about me, where he claims that he has not lied and alleges that I have been "erecting straw men ... and manipulating semantics" (but provides no details to support his claim).http://answersforhope.com/god-answers-p ... ange-ways/

I have attempted to reply to his post as follows (I rather suspect I will be censored or part censored once again):[My message as shown in the preceding post]

PS Assuming this is not censored by Jason, I have just tried to invite 'Jermaine' (who calls my comments 'crap') to ask Jason for this missing link (it's only the most recent pages, for 30 January onwards, where Petersen is discussed):viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3153&start=225PPS I cannot currently see my own comment on my screen. But maybe Jason will decide that he can risk allowing it to appear? If he believes in openness. But if not, it is available here (a new thread specifically about Mr Petersen, which he is free to join at any time): viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3220

I suspect Petersen will try to justify censoring me because I was nasty about Bob.

Except that I only mentioned Bob because he and Jason are Thick As Thieves and Bob wrote "it is nice of Haworth to publicly confess to his libel and defamation" (that is hypocritical of Bob considering all the UNTRUE 'defamations' he has posted about me during the past year - which are detailed HERE: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3153&start=225).

"JasonIF you decide to censor my rebuttal of a few minutes ago, please tell me WHY (an email rather than a response here would suffice, though I would post your reply at the BCSE community forum because your reason for any censorship matters).Ashley"

IF this is how the situations remains - JP libels me again in his blog, censors my rebuttal (which is on the World Wide Web and has been copied to assorted creationists and evolutionists by email) and fails even to tell me WHY much less attempt to disagree with my comments - then that would be further evidence that I was correct in branding him a 'liar', a 'hypocrite' (not saying he isn't as Christian) and a 'coward'.

He's also someone with a reputation to defend amongst his blog followers. What would they think if they discovered that I have been speaking the truth about what Petersen has said and done (and some of what I have said to him he has either deleted without reading and censored, or deleted with reading and censored - because he has no answer).

My detailed rebuttal to his libellous comments here remains CENSORED and UNREFUTED and he has FAILED to tell me WHY.

My latest wide circulation email:

"Well, I think the person who owes people an apology is probably Jason.

I am emailing again tonight because he is libelling me again on his blog page - and NOW, apparently, unfairly CENSORING my detailed response to his latest blog about me. Lest his band of blog followers might read it (presumably because he has no answer to what I have written and that might be embarrassing).

"I do believe that you will find that Ashley is just erecting straw men, abusing semantics and using unsubstantiated conjecture." Repeating a claim does NOT make it true, Mr Petersen. In my rebuttal, which you appear to be CENSORING yet again, I asked you to "Please give me and your readers chapter and verses on when and how I have employed "straw men and manipulating of semantics"". Your FAILURE to address this question, and to bluster instead, is clear.

Please either Put Up or Shut Up.

As I have told you already, I quoted back to you YOUR words about 'why' you censored for days and days one of my earlier posts (about your censorship of criticism if I recall correctly). ALL the details are on the original BCSE thread, which also flagged the new thread on 24 March: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3153&start=225 viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3220

Being persistent does NOT make me a liar, Mr Petersen.

I too am more than happy to answer any questions from copy recipients. Including suggest which parts of the first BCSE thread about Petersen may be best checked (but if you are able and curious please look on your own and try to make your OWN mind up first).

I suggest that with his further blogging about me and now his emails reacting to mine (I see that THREE more from him have landed in my email box) Mr Petersen is digging himself into a corner. I should add that I was prepared to let things lie if he did not blog about me again after my email at 0.20 am on 24 March (later forwarded to him).

Clearly he must view my posts as some sort of threat. Why else does he censor and then ignore my responses (or just repeat the same claims without addressing my denials)?

It seems I must be depicted to his followers as a liar and 'obsessed' ie not to be taken seriously.

The alternative would be too awful to contemplate.

AshleyPS I would apologise that O2 email sometimes makes links 'unclickable' - I don't know how to stop it doing that."

"Am I going to keep deleting your posts on my blog? The answer is yes. I don't have time for an endless argument and your behavior is driving home the point regarding your obsessive behavior from the very beginning. For the time being I am less concerned about your responses and more so about your soul.(And I hope that you don't think that you sending email to mostly people who don't even know who I am will make me change my mind.)"

This is detestable and totally unethical behaviour.

He libels me AGAIN. And then CENSORS my reply which shows he is wrong.

A ban is one thing. Libelling me after banning me is cowardice.

But it's all about pretence and 'saving face'. Only 'atheists' lie, biblical creationists 'don't'.

"Am I going to keep deleting your posts on my blog? The answer is yes. I don't have time for an endless argument and your behavior is driving home the point regarding your obsessive behavior from the very beginning. For the time being I am less concerned about your responses and more so about your soul.(And I hope that you don't think that you sending email to mostly people who don't even know who I am will make me change my mind.)"

This is detestable and totally unethical behaviour.

He libels me AGAIN. And then CENSORS my reply which shows he is wrong.

A ban is one thing. Libelling me after banning me is cowardice.

But it's all about pretence and 'saving face'. Only 'atheists' lie, biblical creationists 'don't'.

"Am I going to keep deleting your posts on my blog? The answer is yes. I don't have time for an endless argument and your behavior is driving home the point regarding your obsessive behavior from the very beginning".

I am forwarding this email. Not to the wide circulation (who have already been told of your latest act of censorship as confirmed below) but to five evangelical Christian friends - one is a YEC - from the UK who have already received copies of my earlier emails.

The message also of course is being posted here (if you correct your lie of omission I will of course acknowledge that in the thread):viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3220